I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Oct 11th, 2003 02:01 AM

Zhukov

Well I found a few people that don't seem to think I am wrong; like Dr Craig Venter for example (President and chief scientific officer of Celera Geonomics).

This is from the official press release issued by Science magazine http://www.sciencemag.org/ which published his firms results in its 16 February issue:

Quote:

There are many surprises from this first look at our genetic code that have important implications for humanity. Since the June 26, 2000 announcement our understanding of the human genome has changed in the most fundamental ways. The small number of genes - 30,000 instead of 140,000 - supported the notion that we are not hard-wired . We now know that the notion that one gene leads to one protein and perhaps one disease is false. One gene leads to many different products and those products-proteins- can change dramatically after they are produced. We know that regions of the genome that are not genes may be the key to the complexity we see in humans. We now know the environment acting on these biological steps may be key in makin us what we are. Likewise the remarkably small number of genetic variations that occur in genes again suggest a significant role for environmental influences in developing each of our uniqueness.

This is Dr.Venter, from the Daily Telegraph, 14 February:

Quote:

The fruit fly genome has 13,000 genes and everyone thought that because humans are so much bigger and smarter, we should have a lot more. If you think we are hard-wired—that everything is deterministic—there should be a lot of genes because we have a lot of traits. This makes me as a scientist both laugh and cry. I laugh at the absurdity of it and I want to cry because it is accepted as fact by so much of society. But we are not hard-wired

This is what he apparantly said in a pre-publication press conference to Science magazine:

Quote:

The wonderful diversity of the human species is not hard-wired in our genetic code. Our environments are crucial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1164792.stm
Here is an article that may be of some relevance, specificaly:

Quote:

There are two fallacies to be avoided," Dr Venter's team write in the journal Science.

"Determinism, the idea that all characteristics of a person are 'hard-wired' by the genome; and reductionism, that now the human sequence is completely known, it is just a matter of time before our understanding of gene functions and interactions will provide a complete causal description of human variability."

Another scientist, Svante Pääbo, of the Max Planck Institute Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, makes the same point in another article in the same issue of Science:

Quote:

The successes of medical genetics and genomics during the last decade have resulted in a sharp shift toward an almost completely genetic view of ourselves. I find it striking that 10 years ago, a geneticist had to defend the idea that not only the environment but genes shape human development. Today, one feels compelled to stress that there is a large environmental component to common diseases, behavior, and personality traits! There is an insidious tendency to look to our genes for most aspects of our "humanness", and to forget that the genome is but an internal scaffold for our existence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected.../ecngen215.xml
Another interesting article:

Quote:

Scientists also found that these instructions were strikingly similar across all ethnic groups, with every person sharing 99.99 per cent of their genetic code with all others.

So much for individualism through genes, eh?

Quote:

We also share many genes with more humble organisms - about half with the fruitfly and the nematode worm, and about a fifth with yeast. All that distinguishes an Inuit from a Cockney or an Aborigine, even Britney Spears from Diana Ross, are variations in 300,000 letters in a three billion letter sequence in the human genome.

Quote:

Individual variations in genetic code represent just 0.01 per cent of the sequence of letters.

biological determinism saw it's hey day with Hitler and Thatcher, and I think it is time for it to die.

I'll get back to you on The Blank Slate, I have only managed to find some stuff on Pinkers previous book How the Mind Works.

Oct 10th, 2003 03:24 PM

CaptainBubba

Thing is, I'm refering to egomaniacal in the sense that Rand would be one. Honestly I don't think shes egomaniacal, but if you choose to label her as one then I suppose I can't say I thinks its bad. And we all intrinsicly and unconciously focus on ourselves so much that if one chose to make a case for it, we could all be proved mentally ill in the sense that we are egomaniacs.

In fact that sounds like a good dystopia book.

Quote:

I said that traits like selfishness and selflesness are aquired through life, as opposed to being imprinted into human genetics. Instead of 'all the things I mentioned' being inescapable parts of human exsistance, I believe they are behaviour adapted in relation to the enviroment.

And you're wrong.

Pick up any book dealing with the scientific study of human nature. I already reccommended this one to Helm, but The Blank Slate is a particuraly good one. A little too text booky at some points but still good.

Oct 10th, 2003 10:37 AM

Zhukov

Bubba, I never said people were not naturaly individuals, I said that traits like selfishness and selflesness are aquired through life, as opposed to being imprinted into human genetics. Instead of 'all the things I mentioned' being inescapable parts of human exsistance, I believe they are behaviour adapted in relation to the enviroment.

I think I may be on a different wavelength to what oyu are talking about, so hook me up with some of your study material.

Oct 10th, 2003 09:55 AM

mburbank

"Nothing is wrong with being egomaniacal "
-Bubba

There is a LOT wrong wiith being ANYTHING maniacal. That's what Maniacal means. Focusing on something so much it's a mental illness. As in writting crappy overweight fiction and thinking it contsitutes a world view that should be practiced by everyone.

Imagine if Jackie Collins thought her work constituted a world view. Or if the "Chicken Soup For the Soul" wanted to be a political party. Maniacal means way out of proportion.

Oct 9th, 2003 06:04 PM

CaptainBubba

Quote:

Are human beings naturally lazy, aggressive and hostile to one another? Are we realy obssesed with ourselves? Or are we by nature friendly and co-operative, ready to help others when they are in trouble and share what we have with them? Or alternatively, does it make little or no sense to say that we are anything very specific "by nature", since the society and culture we live in play a great part in determining how we behave? I think it is the latter.

And I think you need to get some study material regarding human nature. Good and bad are relative. We are, by nature, all of the things you stated. And how in the name of all that is reasonable could you ever hope to argue that we are not individuals by nature? Are you more or less than you?

Fascinating.

Oct 9th, 2003 09:56 AM

ranxer

is it not an indicator that many 'indiginous' peoples that were 'colonialized' (enslaved and destroyed) had virtually no concept of private property?

i must read rand again sometime but i thought she had
a good concept of sustainability. no?

Oct 9th, 2003 09:15 AM

Zhukov

Quote:

Keep in mind that for most of human history land was used on a strictly communal basis- the concept of land as property was foreign to most of Europe up until the emergence of feudalism sometime during the late Roman Empire.

I lose count of the number of times I have said that and I am called a liar.

Quote:

By nature we are all obssessed with ourselves and our own interests.

How often is it said that any kind of dissagreable behaviour is just human "nature", as if it couldn't be avoided? Strangely though, it is never said when someone displays a selfless act. When we hear about firemen saving children from burning buildings, for some reason we don't say "That is human nature."

Are human beings naturally lazy, aggressive and hostile to one another? Are we realy obssesed with ourselves? Or are we by nature friendly and co-operative, ready to help others when they are in trouble and share what we have with them? Or alternatively, does it make little or no sense to say that we are anything very specific "by nature", since the society and culture we live in play a great part in determining how we behave? I think it is the latter.

Oct 8th, 2003 09:51 PM

The One and Only...

I think Objectivism scares away possible libertarians...

Wasn't Objectivism written from the perspective that all land was already owned, either by the government (public) or individuals (private)?

I won't argue that Objectivism contradicts itself, however. If cold rational thought is thought to be man's guide, then why can't you initiate force when it is rational to do so?

Oct 8th, 2003 08:44 PM

CaptainBubba

Nothing is wrong with being egomaniacal Max. By nature we are all obssessed with ourselves and our own interests. You can't escape who you are. We are not of a hive mentality. One of her points was stressing that idea. "I" is not a dirty word.

All I've read by her is Anthem, obviously.

I've also looked at many critisisms of her work, but I really should get around to reading her actual novels. I've heard I'd like them, being that I'm a quasi-anarchist libertarian individual freedom obsessive athiest.

Oct 8th, 2003 06:46 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Ayn Rand's biggest flaw is that she assumes that every person can act with intelligence.

I think that Objectivism was made merely to make a point, not to be an actual philosophy.

Entire institutes were started in her name, with her blessing, to push Objectivism on young college students, with the intent to lobby on its behalf through public policy. She took herself very seriously, all contradictions aside.

Oct 8th, 2003 06:40 PM

derrida

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Derrida, one must first understand that according to Randian philosophy, the capitalists did not initiate force because they own the land and did not force the lower class to work for them. As written by some extreme libertarians, one has "the right to die of hunger".

I'm not calling into doubt your knowledge of Objectivism, but there is indeed a force used in the aquisition of land. Keep in mind that for most of human history land was used on a strictly communal basis- the concept of land as property was foreign to most of Europe up until the emergence of feudalism sometime during the late Roman Empire. The workers are indeed forced to work for the capitalists because they lack both land and viable skills (the artisan class, which once constituted a significant portion of european society died out rather quickly following industrialization and the emergence of a capitalist order)

The "right to starvation" is a self-negating logical fallacy. Anyone who speaks of "rights" seriously must surely recognize the right of man to arrive at an end through his own devices, not because he refuses to cede his most basic human nature as a producer of objects to the machinations of capital.

Oct 8th, 2003 06:24 PM

The One and Only...

Ayn Rand's biggest flaw is that she assumes that every person can act with intelligence.

I think that Objectivism was made merely to make a point, not to be an actual philosophy.

Oct 8th, 2003 05:36 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by mburbank

The problem I have with Rand is that she was a nasty hypocritical ego maniacal piece of work who's writting was significantly worse than Stephen King and who fringe groups of idiots still insist on taking seriously as 'philosiphy' instead of pseudo intellectual summer beach reading.

Yeah, you get the point like 1/4 of the way through The Fountainhead, and then the rest is like listening to the parents from the Charlie Brown cartoons over and over again.....

Oct 8th, 2003 05:25 PM

The One and Only...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mburbank

Right.

Derrida, one must first understand that according to Randian philosophy, the capitalists did not initiate force because they own the land and did not force the lower class to work for them. As written by some extreme libertarians, one has "the right to die of hunger".

Oct 8th, 2003 10:38 AM

ranxer

shit a theistic glass ceiling!

i know its there damnit its' just well hidden.

as if concepts of sustainability aren't enough to make solid decisions, yall theists think athiests doom the world!?

where the hell are we going with a christian government at this moment!!?

I'd take Rands concepts over GWB's in a second!

make sure yer head is squarely in the sand when you slam rand please.

Oct 8th, 2003 10:23 AM

mburbank

Oct 8th, 2003 10:16 AM

Zhukov

Good one, Vince. We can tell that you put in the bad sentences just to get attention.

Oct 8th, 2003 10:03 AM

VinceZeb

The problem I have with Ann's philosophy and with the Objectivism movement in general is that Ann was an atheist and thus there was no higher power to keep in check for what humans could do. She also has a couple of beliefs that fall into the range of "make money however you can, and if you fuck over people in the process, eh thats cool". Even the father of Capitalism said that we should have a free market but we should also help with a-b-c.

Oct 7th, 2003 11:28 PM

derrida

Note how Rand concieves of the role of the police or military only in a reactive context:

"The basic principle is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force. No man or group has the right to initiate the use of force against others. We do, however, have the right to use force in self-defense, though only to those who initiate its use."

The problem that arises is such: Where can one draw the line between reaction and initiation?

To Rand, it is the syndicalists attempting to gain control of the factory who have "initiated" the use of force, and are thus met with "just" violence on the part of the police.

When one looks beyond the logic of Rand a different perspective begins to congeal. The syndicalists are reacting against a different kind of force- the physical reality imposed upon the proletariat by capitalism: biological survival through the sale of one's time.

"The property-owners wish a fatal illness upon me for having said that property, alone and of itself, is theft; as if property did not derive the whole of its value from traffic in products and thus were not dependent upon a phenomenon higher than itself, the collective strength and solidarity of labor." -Pierre J. Proudhon

Oct 7th, 2003 09:20 PM

The One and Only...

Quote:

Originally Posted by derrida

"Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual right and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships." -Ayn Rand

The problem with the Randite philosophy espoused by members of groups such as the Libertarian Party or the FSP is its failure to recognize the use of force in situations not related to the use of governmental intervention in market processes.

The existance of capital is only possible through the use of force; the force involved in obtaining said capital as well as the force one must apply to maintain ownership of it. One can outsource this defensive force to whatever institution is most convenient, be it the free market or the state.

Oh, we recognize that the use of force is sometimes necessary. Hence why Ayn Rand still wanted the police and military.

You are taking her point far too literally.

Oct 7th, 2003 09:02 PM

Geggy

NH is a tax free state, including cigerettes and alcohol, and there are not a lot of hippies, that's vermont you're thinking of. NH is just filled with ****** hating outdoorsy type of redneck fuckers who ride on harleys. Concord is a perfect city to do it in cuz that town is a fucking ghost town that could use some action.

Oct 7th, 2003 08:45 PM

Helm

A person going by the nickname derrida should never make straightforward sense, damn you.

Oct 7th, 2003 07:57 PM

derrida

Oct 7th, 2003 07:17 PM

kahljorn

California sucks.

A "Free-State" could be fun, but I don't get the basis of the idea for it... it's going to have different laws and what-not? Will people be allowed to do drugs there?

I just thought an anarchist state sounded ironic.

Oct 7th, 2003 07:15 PM

ranxer

anarchist?

well the libs seem to have co-opted 'free state'

i'd like to move to a hippy state

make love not war =)

oh and sorry but california doesnt come anywhere close for me

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off